Honestly, it is probably just a reaction to all the vultures who can't wait to feast on Fed's flesh after every loss. Perhaps the *******s started it, but both sides are part of the problem.

Click to expand...

They look pretty stupid too IMO.

I do worry for the hard-core Fed fans who have spent that last however many years quoting just how many slams he's won compared to any and everyone else, whenever he faces any hint of criticism for anything, and even when he's not. It's going to be a tough few years for them and the rest of us if they can't take any enjoyment from anything less than total domination.

Certainly not, he was on the brink of losing in the 4th round and made a career highest # of doublefaults in any slam tourney, he was in good form but "in-onimous" it was not (that would be something like 2005 or 2007 AO)..

Regarding Nadal being less than 100%, considering that that's the only time the guy actually won AO, that's a ridiculous statement.

BTW. If Gonzo is so weak, how come he managed to blast mighty GOAT Nadal off court in his AO run?

Calendar-year Grand Slam indicates incredible level within 12 months only. Federer is GOAT because of his entire career, not because there was a particular calendar year when he would win 3 grass and 1 clay tournament doing S&V.

Click to expand...

It's pointless in trying to reason with Thundervolley. According to him a GS is the be-all and end-all. A player win 100 slams still can't be a goat, but single GS alone is. :shock:

You have to compare peaks with peaks not head to head as Fed is not of the same generation as D and M, but is with Nadal due to the latter's early start.

Fed's four years from 2004 to 2007 are still unmatched by anything anyone else has done.

Click to expand...

Yes, but also no. Regardless, those statistics matter, although you can choose to ignore them if it's convenient for you. Not only are the 2/3 of his losses in majors all from the same three guys, but approx. half of all of his losses are from the same three guys. Federer did get back to number one last year, which means that he is still very much dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, if you look at the differential of his losses between 2004-2007 and 2008-2013, the difference is completely accounted for by Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. Of course Federer isn't at his peak right now, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a losing record against these guys. If anyone wants to suggest that if Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic were all playing at their absolute best at the same time that Federer would still have dominated like he did from 2004-07, that's completely BS. I bet he doesn't pass Sampras on the all-time list.

Federer definitely played a weaker batch of players in his prime. He was lucky to get to his prime in that era when players were not both talented and fit as today's Dkjo and Murray. None of the payers he played to win in GS titles who are still playing are in top 10 (exculding Murray and Djko). Those whom he beat in current top 4, Murray and Djko especially are playing at a totally different level now. They are no longer babies like when he beat them.

Rodick, Hewitt, Bahgdathis who were playing with current batch of players cannot even make to top 10. If it happens with one player it is fine but none of them can be in top 10 then it means they were not playing the current level of today's top 4.

Having said all this, I am not a Federer hater, he deserves the credit for his success. But we have to agree that Fed at 25 in today's draw will not have the same success. May be 40% of what he had at that time only he can have if he was 25 in this era.

Click to expand...

Baghdatis? guy was top 10 for 5 minutes after 2 decent slam runs, he's not a top player of any generation.

Worst argument I've ever seen on these boards and that's saying something, by your logic Mardy Fish making top 10 recently when he could barely sniff the top 20 back in Fed's prime means this era is twice as bad - Hewitt and Safin beating Sampras like a drum in major finals means that prime Pete would have 10% of his success in that era

Fact is Federer in '04 and '05 faced every number 1 from the past 5 years in slams (Safin/Hewitt/Guga/Agassi/Roddick/Ferrero), 5 in slam finals and won 5/8 majors and 2/2 YECs under those conditions which is ridiculously difficult to do (Djokovic and Nadal couldn't back up their multi slam years with another multi slam year for example).

'06/'07 are weaker due to those top players all falling by the wayside at the same time mainly due to injury (Ferrero/Hewitt/Safin/Guga, and Coria/Gaudio disappeared as well giving easier clay draws), only Davydenko and Nalbandian were still at the top of their games and they choke too much in majors to do anything, because of this it could be argued that it became very easy for very good players who started to succeed in majors ("baby" Murray and Djokovic) had a relatively easier time breaking into top 5 with Fed/Nadal and staying there as the an entire generation of the previous top players bar Fed/Roddick (occasionally) fell off due to injuries.

In short, prime Murray/Djokovic (particularly Djokovic at RG/AO) probably could've taken a match here or there even in Fed's prime just as the previous top players were able to in '04/'05, but to say he'd have less than half as much success just with those two in there is poor form lacking logic and horribly disrespectful to the top players of the previous generation who gave Fed huge challenges.

Seriously. The top guys are better now than they were. In 2006, James Blake and Davydenko finished the year in the top four. Since 2008, the top four has been gridlocked by the same four guys...and these are also Federer's post-prime years. Interesting.

Yes, but also no. Regardless, those statistics matter, although you can choose to ignore them if it's convenient for you. Not only are the 2/3 of his losses in majors all from the same three guys, but approx. half of all of his losses are from the same three guys. Federer did get back to number one last year, which means that he is still very much dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, if you look at the differential of his losses between 2004-2007 and 2008-2013, the difference is completely accounted for by Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. Of course Federer isn't at his peak right now, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a losing record against these guys. If anyone wants to suggest that if Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic were all playing at their absolute best at the same time that Federer would still have dominated like he did from 2004-07, that's completely BS. I bet he doesn't pass Sampras on the all-time list.

Click to expand...

What makes Federer an all time great is longevity, to be able to play at a high level over a decade. Sure Federer might have lost 5 slams during 04-07 if he had this kind of competition but Federer might have also won 5 more slams during his post prime years. Djokovic, Murray and especially Nadal has yet to show us that they can play at a high level during their late 20s and it won't be enough to stop Federer from winning during his late years.

Seriously. The top guys are better now than they were. In 2006, James Blake and Davydenko finished the year in the top four. Since 2008, the top four has been gridlocked by the same four guys...and these are also Federer's post-prime years. Interesting.

Click to expand...

So what we both have is useless statistics. What still stands is that Federer has 17 slams and those three have a combine count of 17.

Yes, but also no. Regardless, those statistics matter, although you can choose to ignore them if it's convenient for you. Not only are the 2/3 of his losses in majors all from the same three guys, but approx. half of all of his losses are from the same three guys. Federer did get back to number one last year, which means that he is still very much dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, if you look at the differential of his losses between 2004-2007 and 2008-2013, the difference is completely accounted for by Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. Of course Federer isn't at his peak right now, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a losing record against these guys. If anyone wants to suggest that if Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic were all playing at their absolute best at the same time that Federer would still have dominated like he did from 2004-07, that's completely BS. I bet he doesn't pass Sampras on the all-time list.

Click to expand...

You don't know that, and no one does except all speculation. Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Gonzo/Ferrero/Ljubicic/Davydenko/Coria, etc. and early bloomer Nadal have faced a better version of Federer.

Nole/Nadal/Murray are face a deteriorating Federer. When a player is 5 or 6 years apart the H2H doesn't say much because their prime years aren't overlapped. That's not a good comparison. Fed should be compare to players at around his age, like the players I've listed above. Why? because they all met each other at their prime years.

While the top 4 are great players and deserve to be at the top, the slowing down and homogenizing of the courts have made it much easier to dominate. If the courts were faster, upsets would have been much more frequent since it is easier to get hot and remain at that level for 5 sets on faster courts.

While the top 4 are great players and deserve to be at the top, the slowing down and homogenizing of the courts have made it much easier to dominate. If the courts were faster, upsets would have been much more frequent since it is easier to get hot and remain at that level for 5 sets on faster courts.

Click to expand...

Yes it certainly has. No argument there. Again, for the record, I think Federer is the greatest player in the history of the Open Era. He is brilliant, and perhaps his best form is better than anyone else's. But winning majors and being ranked number one etc. are not so much about the overall level of competition but rather the level at the very top, because these are the men who are really competing for major titles. The rest is filler. I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible, and my conclusion is that Federer is facing stiffer competition than he did in the mid 2000's. I suppose it's the natural ebb and flow of competition. Another important observation for me is that there is not a single player from Federer's generation, with the exception of maybe Ferrer (and he's not really even a contender) who is relevant today. This could mean several different things, but regardless, they've been phased out. Federer is still competing for majors, but now he has company.

This Federer criticism is a freaking joke. The guy is HANDS DOWN the greatest player ever. Joko or Nadal might be able to catch him, but they need a lot more wins and longevity.

Federer has lost at least 1/2 or 1 full step and yet, he's still one of the top 4 players in the world.

Does anyone honestly think Joko, Rafa or Murray will be as good at age 31 as Roger is now?? If you do, you're delusional.

Federer in his prime from 2006 beats Murray, Joko and Rafa on hard court 90% of the time. The fact that Roger still gets to GS semis or finals and won Wimbledon last year is amazing. Look at his record, consistency, longevity, and all the indicators--he's the greatest ever. There is NO DEBATE --maybe in 3 or 4 years if Novak and/or Rafa win more slams and titles...BUT NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.. And their main mission in life is trying to convert everyone they possibly can. Its worse then Jonestown. Always trying to push their "Hands down greatest ever' rhetoric on to people and when people don't agree with their premise, they gang up like a pack of wild swiss wolves

"oh dont insult my federer". "please love Roger"

If hes the hands down GOAT, he shouldnt have been so pathetic vs. his main rival on the big stage.

Fed is in discussion for GOAT. But to say he's "hands down" the greatest, is pure bunk. Since GOAT represents "all time" and tennis existed before the Open Era

If hes the hands down GOAT, he shouldnt have been so pathetic vs. his main rival on the big stage.

Fed is in discussion for GOAT. But to say he's "hands down" the greatest, is pure bunk. Since GOAT represents "all time" and tennis existed before the Open Era[/QUOTE]

Nadal has beaten Federer mainly at the French. No one has argued he's the best clay courter ever. But, overall, Federer could do more in his prime than any player ever. Just ask Pete Sampras, McEnroe and Rod Laver. They have ALL been on record saying Fed is the best ever.

I do worry for the hard-core Fed fans who have spent that last however many years quoting just how many slams he's won compared to any and everyone else, whenever he faces any hint of criticism for anything, and even when he's not. It's going to be a tough few years for them and the rest of us if they can't take any enjoyment from anything less than total domination.

Click to expand...

Well, that is the revealing part of their outlook: if they were so confident about Federer's status, they would not need to flood this board with attacks on Djokovic, Murray, or re-post meaningless stats, while trying to ignore history Federer did not make.

outside of clay, he does vs a federer playing atleast decent tennis ...

funny how when trying to 'degrade' federer, *******s like you are disrespecting the efforts of rafa himself ; when in reality rafa turned up close to his very best on majority of the occasions when he met fed ...

outside of clay, he does vs a federer playing atleast decent tennis ...

funny how when trying to 'degrade' federer, *******s like you are disrespecting the efforts of rafa himself ; when in reality rafa turned up close to his very best on majority of the occasions when he met fed ...

Click to expand...

Funny, weren't you the one saying Rafa played better quality in the 07 final than 08 WIM?

Rafa clearly wasn't 100% at AO09 after that gruelling semi he had his knees taped up all tournament.

Funny, weren't you the one saying Rafa played better quality in the 07 final than 08 WIM?

Click to expand...

eh, no ... I said that rafa played better from the baseline in the 2007 final, but served better in the 2008 final ... a bit better overall in 2008, giving the benefit of doubt to rafa's better serving over federer's worse returning in wim 08 ... but close , very close in both ...

eh, no ... I said that rafa played better from the baseline in the 2007 final, but served better in the 2008 final ... a bit better overall in 2008, giving the benefit of doubt to rafa's better serving over federer's worse returning in wim 08 ... but close , very close in both ...

Click to expand...

ok so Rafa wasn't at his best level in WIM07 thank you for finally admitting that.

ok so Rafa wasn't at his best level in WIM07 thank you for finally admitting that.

Click to expand...

he was ... just because he was a bit better in 2008, doesn't mean he wasn't at his best in the 2007 final... best doesn't include only 'one' match .. it includes a bunch of matches where a player played at a very high level, where there isn't a significant gap in the playing level

Oh and now decent opponents matter do they? weren't you cacking on about the level the players play at mattering more than rankings....

Verdy played the match of his life just like Wawrinka did against Novak.

And Nadal played better in 2012 AO semi v Fed.

Click to expand...

let's not get into the CVAC egg or any other similar controversial topics regarding recovery .....

when I say decent opponents, I mean players who were playing well .... that includes verdasco in AO 2009

better by how much in any of those 2 matches - AO 2009 SF or AO 2012 SF ? not much of a difference at all .... IMO, in fact he played a bit better in the AO 2009 F than in the AO 2012 SF ... federer was plainly worse in AO 2012 ...

AO 2009 SF vs verdasco, nadal was at his defensive best, but he wasn't making many of those amazing offensive shots as he did vs fed in the finals ... different methods, but very similar level IMO ...

he was ... just because he was a bit better in 2008, doesn't mean he wasn't at his best in the 2007 final... best doesn't include only 'one' match .. it includes a bunch of matches where a player played at a very high level, where there isn't a significant gap in the playing level

Click to expand...

2007 semi he lost a set to Novak who isn't the best mover on grass and was most certainly not in 2011 form. He also almost lost to Sod and Youzhny IIRC. NOt really an indicator of being in his best form...

when I say decent opponents, I mean players who were playing well .... that includes verdasco in AO 2009

better by how much in any of those 2 matches - AO 2009 SF or AO 2012 SF ? not much of a difference at all .... IMO, in fact he played a bit better in the AO 2009 F than in the AO 2012 SF ... federer was plainly worse in AO 2012 ...

AO 2009 SF vs verdasco, nadal was at his defensive best, but he wasn't making many of those amazing offensive shots as he did vs fed in the finals ... different methods, but very similar level IMO ...

Click to expand...

Careful saying amazing shots, according to Mandy that's the way a fangirl describes matches...

BTW wasn't much better in those 2 matches but was better than that final. He was outplayed in the second set, for most of the third set and the fourth set.

2007 semi he lost a set to Novak who isn't the best mover on grass and was most certainly not in 2011 form. He also almost lost to Sod and Youzhny IIRC. NOt really an indicator of being in his best form...

Careful saying amazing shots, according to Mandy that's the way a fangirl describes matches...

BTW wasn't much better in those 2 matches but was better than that final. He was outplayed in the second set, for most of the third set and the fourth set.

Click to expand...

yeah, because federer was playing well off the ground ...how is it that tough for you to accept that arguably the best HC player ever playing well could outplay your boy rafa on HC for a stretch? :roll:

again, finally, nothing significant that separated rafa's level in the finals when compared to those 2 matches .....

But he played better in 08. Clearly. So therefore 2008 was his best level. LOL why you want to keep going around in circles? You'd have to have a brick in your head to think Rafa was better in 07 final.

and rafa could've been using something else for 'recovery' ...fact is his level in the final was close to the best he's capable of on HC ...

Click to expand...

Could've? So your another ******* that thinks Nadal is a doper? LOL the CVAC egg is a FACT it isn't speculation like the useless dribble you're coming up with. Are you really that stupid to think Rafa knew he was going to play a 5 hour semi and 4 and a half hour final back to back so he decided to dope? What an idiot.

Must really burn to the core that Rafa came along and put Fed in his place hahahaha

yeah, because federer was playing well off the ground ...how is it that tough for you to accept that arguably the best HC player ever playing well could outplay your boy rafa on HC for a stretch? :roll:

again, finally, nothing significant that separated rafa's level in the finals when compared to those 2 matches .....

But he played better in 08. Clearly. So therefore 2008 was his best level. LOL why you want to keep going around in circles? You'd have to have a brick in your head to think Rafa was better in 07 final.

Click to expand...

clueless , my stance has remained the same, nadal's level in the 07 final and 2008 final were very similar, very slightly better in 2008 .... both were amongst his best matches on grass court, i.e. his best level ..if it doesn't get into that thick head of yours, not my problem ...

Could've? So your another ******* that thinks Nadal is a doper? LOL the CVAC egg is a FACT it isn't speculation like the useless dribble you're coming up with. Are you really that stupid to think Rafa knew he was going to play a 5 hour semi and 4 and a half hour final back to back so he decided to dope? What an idiot.

Must really burn to the core that Rafa came along and put Fed in his place hahahaha

Click to expand...

eh, I didn't say doping ... there are other legal ways of recovering too ... I'm not going in to research deep into that and put in links ...fact is nadal played darn well in the finals

clueless , my stance has remained the same, nadal's level in the 07 final and 2008 final were very similar, very slightly better in 2008 .... both were amongst his best matches on grass court, i.e. his best level ..if it doesn't get into that thick head of yours, not my problem ...

Click to expand...

2008 was his best level on grass. He won Queens in impressive fashion getting through a tough final against Novak. If he played at that level in 07 he would've won Wimbledon. Truth is, his whole 07 WIM tournament wasn't that great, he had major scares on his way to the final, had trouble against Novak who at the time was not accomplished on grass and nowhere near 2011 form before he quit the match. He didn't just magically pick up form in the final. Same deal with Fed. In 2008 they were both playing a much better Wimbledon and hence the final was better quality. THey were both at their best on grass and Rafa won. Deal with it.

yeah, only plexi came into the picture after his peak ... he's still doing ok on it considering that ....

Click to expand...

LOL as if Novak was anywhere near his peak when he thumped Fed in 08. And Fed played very well in 09 final, ground game was every bit as good as his peak years, just that Nadal was still too good for him even though he was exhausted and had his knees taped lol.

yeah, of course serving isn't significant >> we all saw murray's serving yesterday didn't make much difference at all ...

tsonga's huge serving didn't play a huge part in his demolition of nadal in AO 2008

murray's clutch serving in the AO 2010 QF didn't play a part in his convincing win over nadal in AO 2010 QF

clueless hypocrite !

Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. Sorry you're not intelligent enough to pick that up. You said there was nothing significant to separate the 09 final from the 12 semi after I already said Nadal served a lot better in 2012, hence the sarcastic comment about serving not being significant. LOL and you think you're an intelligent *******, I guess comprehension is not your strong point? fwhahahaha!

This Federer criticism is a freaking joke. The guy is HANDS DOWN the greatest player ever. Joko or Nadal might be able to catch him, but they need a lot more wins and longevity.

Federer has lost at least 1/2 or 1 full step and yet, he's still one of the top 4 players in the world.

Does anyone honestly think Joko, Rafa or Murray will be as good at age 31 as Roger is now?? If you do, you're delusional.

Federer in his prime from 2006 beats Murray, Joko and Rafa on hard court 90% of the time. The fact that Roger still gets to GS semis or finals and won Wimbledon last year is amazing. Look at his record, consistency, longevity, and all the indicators--he's the greatest ever. There is NO DEBATE --maybe in 3 or 4 years if Novak and/or Rafa win more slams and titles...BUT NOT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Sounds like nostalgic sour grapes to me. (And it certainly appears that you are debating, so I guess there is a debate.)

Fed must be washed up, if you're already wishing for the grand ole days of 2006.

2008 was his best level on grass. He won Queens in impressive fashion getting through a tough final against Novak. If he played at that level in 07 he would've won Wimbledon. Truth is, his whole 07 WIM tournament wasn't that great, he had major scares on his way to the final, had trouble against Novak who at the time was not accomplished on grass and nowhere near 2011 form before he quit the match. He didn't just magically pick up form in the final. Same deal with Fed. In 2008 they were both playing a much better Wimbledon and hence the final was better quality. THey were both at their best on grass and Rafa won. Deal with it.

Click to expand...

yes, nadal's level was significantly better in the 2007 final than in the previous matches ...he wouldn't have come close to challenging fed otherwise ....

fact is federer played worse by quite a bit in 2008 , though well, somewhat below his best tennis ... nadal played his best tennis in 2007 and lost ....

LOL as if Novak was anywhere near his peak when he thumped Fed in 08. And Fed played very well in 09 final, ground game was every bit as good as his peak years, just that Nadal was still too good for him even though he was exhausted and had his knees taped lol.

Click to expand...

novak's 2008 AO was easily his best slam before 2011 began .. he played quite a bit better there than he did in AO 2012 and so far has in AO 2013 ( especially considering his scare vs wawrinka )

I was being sarcastic. Sorry you're not intelligent enough to pick that up. You said there was nothing significant to separate the 09 final from the 12 semi after I already said Nadal served a lot better in 2012, hence the sarcastic comment about serving not being significant. LOL and you think you're an intelligent *******, I guess comprehension is not your strong point? fwhahahaha!

Click to expand...

except you are totally hopeless when it comes to observation ... rafa's serving was on a similar level in both their AO matches ...

except you are totally hopeless when it comes to observation ... rafa's serving was on a similar level in both their AO matches ...

Click to expand...

Absolute hogwash. He served less DF, got 77% first serves in, winning 69% and won 63% of second serve points compared to 64% in, winning 66% and second serve points won was only 48% and the speeds were very similar so it's not like he pushed them in in 2012.

Absolute hogwash. He served less DF, got 77% first serves in, winning 69% and won 63% of second serve points compared to 64% in, winning 66% and second serve points won was only 48% and the speeds were very similar so it's not like he pushed them in in 2012.

FAR from similar.

Click to expand...

wrong and clueless again , average speeds ...

AO 2009 F :

1st serve : 179 kmh
2nd serve : 143 kmh

AO 2012 SF:

1st serve :172 kmh
2nd serve : 137 kmh

yes, that's a considerable difference on both first and second serve in terms of speed ....

but then again, if your observation skills were good enough , you'd have noticed that there wasn't that much of a difference in the level of serving ...

rafa's success level being considerably lesser on the second serve in 2009 was because fed was quite a bit better from the ground in the AO 2009 final than in the AO 2012 semi ...

its just your deluded tune ..... fact is both matches were played at a very high level, fed was 'quite a bit' better in 2007 than he was in 2008; nadal was only a bit better in 2008 than he was in 2007 , the difference wasn't even that much ...

LOL 7 and 6 kmh isn't much of a difference on avg at all. Not so much to the point that he would get 13% more first serves in.

And there were same amount of aces and 3 less DF. He served a lot better and there is nothing that you have to deny that. Arrboomk.

Click to expand...

LOL, ha ha ha , 7 kmh and 6kmh respectively on an average is a very significant difference ............. the speeds are not very similar , clueless ....... I'm just LOLing here at you trying to deny that :lol:

yes, 7 kmh is quite enough for a 13% decrease in first serve %..... 6 kmh more on the 2nd serve on an average is also a significant difference ....

Federer definitely played a weaker batch of players in his prime. He was lucky to get to his prime in that era when players were not both talented and fit as today's Dkjo and Murray. None of the payers he played to win in GS titles who are still playing are in top 10 (exculding Murray and Djko). Those whom he beat in current top 4, Murray and Djko especially are playing at a totally different level now. They are no longer babies like when he beat them.

Rodick, Hewitt, Bahgdathis who were playing with current batch of players cannot even make to top 10. If it happens with one player it is fine but none of them can be in top 10 then it means they were not playing the current level of today's top 4.

Having said all this, I am not a Federer hater, he deserves the credit for his success. But we have to agree that Fed at 25 in today's draw will not have the same success. May be 40% of what he had at that time only he can have if he was 25 in this era.

Click to expand...

Roddick was in the top 10 from 2002 to 2010/2011, basically. He is a landmark player for consistency.

Hewitt had a streaky career because he was dealt with a few injuries, Murray and Nadal both have, too, and have faced ranking slips because of it.

Baghdatis was never top 4 material, Davydenko held on a long time and he's within the same period as Federer, as did a few other players.

its just your deluded tune ..... fact is both matches were played at a very high level, fed was 'quite a bit' better in 2007 than he was in 2008; nadal was only a bit better in 2008 than he was in 2007 , the difference wasn't even that much ...

Click to expand...

So Nadal was better in 08 and Fed was quite a bit worse, yet it was very close. And in 2007 Nadal was only slightly worse and Fed was quite a bit better yet it was still pretty close. Hmmmm. Something just doesn't add up here. It is contradiction at its finest. Especially when you factor in 07 having two very one sided sets and 08 all sets were relatively competitive. SO quite a bit better Roger lost a set 6-2, but quite a bit worse Roger lost sets 6-4 against an even better Nadal. LOL.

Nadal played MUCH cleaner in 08 only 3 more UE than 07 even though 08 went longer. Nadal gave Fed less free points which was causing Fed to get frustrated and therefore put pressure on his ground strokes which in turn caused more errors from Fed.

So there was a big difference. Not to mention their form heading into the final was far better than 07.

LOL, ha ha ha , 7 kmh and 6kmh respectively on an average is a very significant difference ............. the speeds are not very similar , clueless ....... I'm just LOLing here at you trying to deny that :lol:

yes, 7 kmh is quite enough for a 13% decrease in first serve %..... 6 kmh more on the 2nd serve on an average is also a significant difference ....

only the disordered one can think/say otherwise ... :lol:

Click to expand...

Dude, you don't even play. I'm telling you the reaction times to a 172k and 179k serve is negligent. You are talking (or typing whichever way you put it) through your arse.

So Nadal was better in 08 and Fed was quite a bit worse, yet it was very close. And in 2007 Nadal was only slightly worse and Fed was quite a bit better yet it was still pretty close. Hmmmm. Something just doesn't add up here. It is contradiction at its finest. Especially when you factor in 07 having two very one sided sets and 08 all sets were relatively competitive. SO quite a bit better Roger lost a set 6-2, but quite a bit worse Roger lost sets 6-4 against an even better Nadal. LOL.

Nadal played MUCH cleaner in 08 only 3 more UE than 07 even though 08 went longer. Nadal gave Fed less free points which was causing Fed to get frustrated and therefore put pressure on his ground strokes which in turn caused more errors from Fed.

So there was a big difference. Not to mention their form heading into the final was far better than 07.

Click to expand...

how thick are you ? do you even look at all the stats properly , analyzing them in their context

didn't I already say nadal had equal no of winners in both the finals - 50 ...... he made 3 more UEs in the 2007 final ....... duh, big difference ...

regarding the 6-2 set that fed lost, it probably would not have been if not for hawkeye screwing it up ... nadal would've won the set, but it wouldn't have been 6-2 ...

funny how you bring up nadal's thumpings at the hands of nalbandian a year and half ago as a possible reason for nadal being outplayed for better part of two sets in IW 2009, yet you don't give credence to the possibility that the RG 2008 F drubbing just about a month ago , had quite a bit of effect on federer mentally - that showed quite a bit in the first two sets ..... after losing those 2 sets, he just dug deeper and raised his level of play for the other 3 sets

Nonsense. post-peak Fed has beaten Novak at every major, but at the AO he hasn't even got a set off him. Novak would thump him as usual.

Click to expand...

you are clueless .... novak in 2008 faced a clearly better version of tsonga in 2008 than he did in 2010, yet he beat tsonga in 4 sets in 2008 and lost in 5 sets to tsonga in 2010 .. quite a bit of difference in form

fed thumped tsonga in the semis ( yeah, a bit exhausted from the 5-setters, but it was an absolute thumping ) ...

hell, tsonga was playing even better this year than he did vs nole in the AO 2010 QF, yet fed beat him ... and fed was playing quite a bit better in 2009 and 2010 AO

2009 , nole retired when he was getting outplayed and out-matched fitness wise by roddick in the heat and fed of course thumped roddick in the semis ... he'd have beaten nole there as well ...

At the AO, in 2009 & 2010, nole wasn't near his 2012 form, let alone his 2011 or 2008 form ...and fed was quite a bit better in 2009 and 2010 than he was in 2008 or 2011 ...

Dude, you don't even play. I'm telling you the reaction times to a 172k and 179k serve is negligent. You are talking (or typing whichever way you put it) through your arse.

Click to expand...

again, you are downright thick .... the difference b/w a 172 k and 179 k serve on its own isn't that much ... but when you are talking about average over a match, the difference is significant ... that's why I underlined the words , on an average, but you are thick enough not to notice that as well .....

Agassi, the sport's oldest-ever world No.1, says he has long given up being surprised about anything Federer achieves and believes even at almost 32 he is at the top of his game.

'I was ranked No.1 possibly even at 33,' Agassi said.

'When I was ranked No.1 at that age, I felt better than when I was 25. I felt like I was a better player.

'Given that, I would assume that Roger probably feels like a better player because he's smarter.

'He's dealing with tougher competition. He might not win like he used to. But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then).

'That would be a fair assumption.'

Click to expand...

It's good to see that another tennis great agrees with me when it comes to Fed's competition and playing abilities at his current age.

BUT Arrrrrboooooomk seems to know something Agassi doesn't because Arrrrrboooooomk is smarter and knows more than legends like Agassi and Hewitt who continuously admit that the reason Fed doesn't win as much is because they weren't as tough a competetion as the current gen. LOL.